beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be revoked.
2.(a)
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) Former legal relationship with respect to each of the instant lands: D, E, F, G (each category and size omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) at the time of strike
) The deceased H owned and C (hereinafter “instant land”)
(2) Around January 12, 1998, the network H was owned by Nonparty I. (hereinafter “instant building”). Around January 12, 1998, the network H built a general restaurant building of 2 stories of reinforced concrete building, 78.48 square meters on the ground of land D and F land with written consent for the use of land on 16.5 square meters (the side of the JJ land in Hongju-si), among the instant land, on the ground of D and F land, and used the entire part of the instant building as a road with a meritorious road.
CJ T QG K PoD E 3) On the other hand, on the instant land and on the ground of K (State-owned land), one-story neighborhood living facilities (office rooms) with cement block tanks of 33.82 square meters owned by I (hereinafter “the instant Plaintiff”).
(A) On the ground of K and G, the provisional building owned by I (hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional building”).
(4) On March 12, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and the instant building and the instant building, respectively, through the auction procedure.
5. Since then, the Plaintiff and the network H conducted a boundary survey at the joint expense to resolve disputes surrounding the building of this case and the passage of the building of this case, which exist on each other’s land.
Then, the Plaintiff proposed that “The part of the instant land and the G land, which is the Plaintiff’s land, should be exchanged so that the instant building and the instant building can be used as the current state, and the part remaining after the exchange should be traded as the current land household.”
The network H rejected the plaintiff's proposal and demanded the removal of the building of this case and the return of the site.
Accordingly, on August 22, 2008, the Plaintiff proved the content that included the following purport to H.